Translation: Martin/Roger made a baseless claim that the DPD violated "normal procedure" by allegedly having a brief delay in logging in the pistol as evidence. But he has no basis to support this claim by showing us what "normal procedure" was followed by the DPD in 1963. I'm not asking for "evidence". Where did you come up with that strawman? I'm asking you to support YOUR claim that it was not normal procedure for a brief delay in logging the evidence. If you suggest that was the case, then surely you can support your claim. Just repeating that claim over and over is not supportive of this as a fact.
We also learn they had murders every day of the year in Dallas in 1963! LOL. It must have been quite a bloody year in Dallas. And therefore the fact that the President had been assassinated that day shouldn't be a consideration in process! It's just another murder. Happens every day. As though the DPD had all the time in the world to complete the paperwork as usual on Nov. 22. You should be ashamed to peddle that nonsense. Oswald's guilt is compelled by the facts and evidence in this case. It is folks such as yourself who ignore the actual evidence and make bizarre claims like a brief delay in logging in the pistol somehow suggests doubt of Oswald's guilt.
As we've mentioned before, this is like a defense attorney trying to persuade one juror to find his client not guilty. It doesn't matter how, it doesn't matter whether it's logical; just find one person to block a guilty vote.
And it's done on every piece of evidence, however small, that indicates Oswald's guilt. Time after time, day after day, week after week, year after year it's this fanatical devotion to the cause of Oswald. Every piece of evidence implicating Oswald has to be attacked, made into a "supposition" or "conjecture", waved away on some made up technical ground (as if we're in a court room).
Thousands and thousands of posts - at this forum, at the previous ones - giving the most innocent interpretations of Oswald's actions, of the evidence against him. Every single time. And thousands more giving the most sinister suggestions and explanations for the actions of everyone else. Every single time. If these aren't the actions of an apologist for Oswald then it's a damned good impersonation of one.
As I said, defending a Dreyfus was understandable. Or other people accused of crimes. But Lee Oswald? This is what they devote their lives to doing?